ID: 86-5.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Douglas Applegate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Douglas Applegate U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Applegate:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Thomas Ash of past Liverpool, who asked about our school bus definition. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Mr. Ash explained in his letter to you that Ohio considers vehicles carrying 10 or more student passengers as school buses. be stated that because a vehicle carrying 9 or fewer passengers is not a "school bus" under state law, it may be operated by staff members and advisors who do not have the special qualifications required by the state for school bus drivers. Since the East Liverpool Board of Education would like to use 15-passenger vans operated by those staff members and advisors to carry school children to school related events, it is interested in changing Ohio's definition of a school bus to exclude such vans. Because the state definition of a school bus adopts the Federal definition of that term, Mr. Ash asks us to explain the reasons for our school bus definition.

The definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. In accordance with Congress's mandate in the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Admendment of 1974, NHTSA has issued safety standards for all new school buses. In the Act, Congress mandated that the safety standards apply to all school buses that are designed to carry more than 10 passengers to ensure that all vehicles likely to be significantly used for student transportation would be subject to comprehensive safety standards.

The East Liverpool City Schools can purchase new 15-passenger vans, conforming to our standards, for use in transporting its pupils to school-related events. However, under the Act and our safety standards, a dealer selling h new 15-passenger van to a school district for the purpose of carrying children to and from school or on school-related trips must ensure that the vehicle conforms to all of our school bus safety standards.

Our schoolbus safety standards apply only to the manufacture and sale of new schoolbuses and do not regulate issues of vehicle operation such as driver training or qualifications. The authority to govern the operation of vehicles rests with the State. NHTSA has issued guidelines to the States to assist them in setting up their own highway safety programs. Ohio's decision to require all drivers of school buses to have special training or a special license is consistent with the recommendations we have issued on pupil transportation safety. Those recommendations are found in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. I want to emphasize that the States are not required to follow our guidelines and can modify them to meet their pupil transportation needs.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure

Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Room 520 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from Mr. Thomas Ash, regarding the rationale for defining a school "bus" as a passenger vehicle accommodating more than nine people.

The East Liverpool School District, East Liverpool. Ohio, has pointed out that the use of a fifteen passenger van would be more practical and economical.

Please review Mr. Ash's letter and respond to me as soon as possible.

Sincerely Yours,

DOUGLAS APPLEGATE Member of Congress

DA/wt Enclosure

October 10, 1986

The Honorable Douglas Applegate United States House of Representatives 2464 Rayburn House Office Building Washington. D. C. 20515

Dear Congressman Applegate:

I appreciate very much your prompt response to my inquiry regarding National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rules and regulations regarding school buses. Perhaps it would be useful if I explained in more detail my inquiry.

For some time now, the East Liverpool Board of Education has expressed a desire to carry more than nine passengers in vans. particularly for field trips or athletic contests away from town. This request is prompted primarily by economic considerations, since the driver of a van with nine or fewer passengers need not possess school bus driver endorsements. This is meant that our regular certificated staff members and advisors can operate these vehicles.

However, we have noted that fifteen-passenger vans are also available and seem comparable, and perhaps even superior, to the construction of the nine-passenger vans which are permitted. As we research this issue, we found immediately that the definition of a school bus, under Ohio law, is restricted to vehicles which transport more than nine student passengers, not including the driver. We immediately began exploring the rationale behind this restriction since, again, it seemed to us that a fifteen-passenger van could be used equally as well as the smaller van. We believed that the regulations as adopted by the State of Ohio did not reflect the technology and design of passenger vans from the major automobile manufacturers.

As we continued our research. we found that the state regulations reflected the Ohio Revised Code. However. it was not possible to contact state legislators regarding this matter since existing Ohio law reflects directly the rules and regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Therefore, there is little hope of effecting any change on the state level until the existing federal regulation can be changed.

Naturally, I am not suggesting that the NHTSA rule be changed without some additional study. There very well could be some rationale behind the existing restriction that requires that vehicles transporting more than nine students be classified as school buses.

My reason for contacting your office was to enlist your assistance in gaining such an explanation from the NHTSA. I hope that this explanation clarifies my request regarding this matter. and I am deeply appreciative of your efforts on our behalf.

With best regards, I am,

Very truly yours,

Thomas P. Ash Superintendent of Schools

TPA:mle

cc: Charles R. Thomas, Jr.

ID: 86-5.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/86

FROM: JOHN GRIFFIN -- PRESIDENT FRAZER BILT INC

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A. U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/06/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOHN GRIFFIN, REDBOOK A30, STANDARD 108, ID AND CLEARANCE LAMP

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Mr. Kevin Cavey suggested that I write you regarding issues of interest to our company. We manufacture emergency medical service vehicles (ambulances). These vehicles are typically mounted on a light duty truck chasis, and are over 80" in width.

The ambulance industry typically defers to the opinions and rulings of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in the placing of identification and clearance lights on emergency vehicles. This often presents a conflict with respect to placing emergency lights and/or lightbars at preferred locations on the ambulance. For example, a light bar above the double rear doors may be placed as high as possible and thereby give no room for identification lights. A similar situation with a front light bar is not relevant since the chassis manufacturer places clearance and identification lamps on the driver's cab roof.

Mr. Cavey indicated his belief that fire engines and E.M.S. vehicles may be exempt from identification and clearance light requirements, but I have not found such a statement in the preamble to Standard 108.

Please advise me of any ruling that might clarify this issue.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely

ID: 86-5.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Lisa Kreeger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Lisa Kreeger Reichert, Strauss & Reed 2510 Carew Tower Cincinnati, OH 15202

Dear Ms. Kreeger:

This responds to your letters of June 27, 1986, and July 11, 1986, and your subsequent phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the safety belt installation requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is of assistance to you.

As Mr. Oesch discussed with you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, sets forth the safety belt installation requirements for passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. The standard, a copy of which is enclosed, regulates only the installation of safety belts and does not require their use. However, the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carriers has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 392.161 that requires safety belt use by operators of trucks and buses involved in interstate commerce. Belt use is also governed by State mandatory use laws.

S4.2.2 and S4.3 of the standard set forth the safety belt installation requirements for new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). Our regulations (49 CFR 571.3) define an MPV as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." S4.2.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208 require the installation of a safety belt for each designated seating position in a MPV.

S4.4 of the standard sets forth the safety belt installation requirements for buses. Our regulations define a bus as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." S4.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of a safety belt at only the driver's designated seating position in a bus. The agency has set additional safety belt requirements for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires the installation of a safety belt at the passenger seats in those small school buses. A copy of Standard No. 222 is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Jones, ESQ. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., SW, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Pursuant to a phone conversation with a receptionist in your office today, I learned that my previous written request request for information had not been received or responded to. Enclosed is a copy of that request. I also spoke to Mr. Ash on July 1, 1896, asking for further information. As of this date I have not received a response from your agency.

Would you please send me a copy of the interpretation of Title 49 of the Code of federal Regulations, Chapter 571, Number 208, Section 4.4 If there are other sections that are applicable to either the bus (more than 10 passengers) or van (less than 10 passengers) seat belt requirement, please include those interpretations also. It is my understanding that in a bus, only the operator must wear a seat belt, while in a van, all passengers must wear seat belts, but I am hoping to find authority to confirm that understanding.

Thank you,

Lisa Kreeger Law Clerk

June 27, 1986

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 400 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Today in a telephone conversation with Mr. Stephen Ash, learned that copies of formal interpretations of federal regulations be obtained from you upon written request. Would you please send me a copy of the interpretation of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 571, Number 208, Section 4.4. If there are other sections that are applicable to the seatbelt requirements for leased buses that carry between 15 and 25 passengers, please include those interpretations also. It is my understanding that only the operator must wear a seat belt but I am hoping to find authority to confirm that understanding.

Thank you,

Lisa Kreeger

ID: 86-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DONALD E. STEPHENS,

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/16/86 TO NHTSA, FROM DONALD E STEPHENS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stephens:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1986, on kit cars and other subjects related to motor vehicle safety, amplifying your previous letter of April 26.

From your most recent letter I gather you are interested in knowing how our regulations would relate to a commercial situation where you buy used Triumph Spitfires, removing bodies and engines, and replacing them with fiberglass bodies of your own manufacture and garden tractor diesel engines. You intend to retain the chassis, and I will assume for purposes of discussion that you will also retain other chassis-related components such as suspension, and original parts such as the braking and steering systems. As the copy of the interpretation furnished you explained, if a kit car operation consists of a new body placed upon an old chassis, the resulting motor vehicle is not considered one that must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to vehicles assembled entirely from new and unused components. This appears to be your situation. However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, with one exception motor vehicle equipment that has been installed to meet a safety standard must remain there for the operational life of the vehicle. The one exception is that an owner may remove such equipment himself. For example, you intend to remove bodies from old Triumphs and resell them with new bodies installed. These vehicles as reassembled must continue to meet the Federal safety standards that they did as originally manufactured (e.g., head rests and seat belts must be retained, the fuel system must not leak more than five ounces of fluid in the first five minutes following a 30 mph barrier impact). But a vehicle that you disassemble and reassemble for your own use need not meet the Federal safety standards. This, in a nutshell, is how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would relate to the operation you are interested in pursuing.

You have asked several related questions such as whether all kit car manufacturers are DOT certified, whether companies that sell plans for home built cars are certified and meet DOT standards, and what do you need to know if you buy plans for building a homebuilt car or a kit car.

The agency does not license or certify manufacturers of kit cars. Nor have we any requirements that apply to those who sell plans for kit cars. Further, we do not know whether vehicles built from these plans could be certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you buy plans to build a car, or assemble a kit, your most important piece of knowledge, as we see it, is whether the vehicle as assembled will meet the requirements necessary for State registration.

You have also asked "how good" are grey market cars converted to U.S. specifications. If a vehicle has been brought into full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards it should provide a level of safety equivalent to one that was originally manufactured to comply with the requirements.

You have also asked how well the center high-mounted stop lamp helps prevent rear end collisions. The research data upon which the decision was made to require all new cars to have the light showed a 53 to 58% reduction in rear end collisions, the latter figure reached when two bulbs were used in a single lamp.

Finally, you have informed us that your planned kit car will be an energy saver, and you have asked whether you could receive a grant from the government for your work. We suggest that you address that question to the Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Scott Muirhead

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 2, 1986 to William Smith of this agency, requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering as an item of original and aftermarket equipment. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described the product as a cross-bed seat for use in pickup trucks. The seat would be made of plastic and supported by a fabricated metal frame and be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing the rear. According to your description, the seat would have safety belts. The following discussion explains the application of our regulations to your potential product.

Since your potential product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the seat would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standard Nos. 207, 208, and 210. However, the safety belts provided with the seat would have to comply with Standard No. 209.

Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of an information sheet briefly describing those responsibilities is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

August 22, 1986

MR. SMITH -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA Dear Sir:

After having reviewed the various motor vehicle safety standards sent to my attention from your good office. I have concluded that our particular Seating System falls outside the standards regulating inboard multi-purpose passenger vehicle seating.

I am therefore enclosing rough sketches of the seating system our company is developing for both an original and after equipment market. I trust these sketches will enable you to identify any Federal Safety Standards which may be or become applicable to a seating system of this nature.

Thanking you in advance for your attention and kind consideration, I am

Respectfully,

Scott Muirhead -- New Project Manager

Enclosures:

[Graphics omitted]

ID: 86-5.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jimmy N. Eavenson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jimmy N. Eavenson Director, Product Engineering E-Z-GO Textron P.O. Box 388 Augusta, GA 30913-2699

Dear Mr. Eavenson:

This responds to your letter asking whether a vehicle your company might import from Japan would be subject to Federal safety requirements. You stated that the vehicle will have a top speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour, be powered by a 20 horsepower engine, would have no body panels other than a protective cab enclosure, and is not designed or intended for use on public roads. Based on this information, these vehicles would not appear to be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as explained below.

The motor vehicle safety standards apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. Section 102(3) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another, are not considered motor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards. You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not designed or intended for use on the public roads, but would be used only at factories, golf courses, and for some off-road applications. Based on these statements, these vehicles do not appear to be motor vehicles, because they are not manufactured for use on the public roads.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 20, 1986

Chief Counsel National Hwy. Transportation Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir (Madam)

E-Z-GO Textron would like your opinion on a potential new product addition, which would be imported from Fuji Heavy Industries of Shinjuku, Japan.

This vehicle is considered for non-highway use at factories, golf courses and some off-road application. The vehicle incorporated a 20 horsepower engine with a four wheel drive powertrain. Gearing, governors and tires will limit the vehicle's top speed to 25 to 30 miles per hour to render it more suitable for grounds maintenance and industrial applications.

United States Customs have indicated that the proposed vehicle would fall under their Tariff Regulation 692.40, Non-highway Self-Propelled Vehicles. The vehicle as imported, would not include body panels with the exception of a protective cab enclosure. The engine is a special built, twin cylinder, industrial type that is being used on a three wheel vehicle manufactured at our Augusta, Georgia factory.

Since this vehicle is not designed or intended for use on public thoroughfares, we would like your opinion on this matter in order to avoid any potential problems.

Your helpfulness and prompt reply in this matter will greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jimmy N. Eavenson Director Product Engineering

ID: 86-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DAVID M. CIMA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/01/86 TO LEGAL COUNSEL -- NHTSA, FROM DAVID M. CIMA RE VISIBLE DISPLAY TO AUTOMOBILE DRIVER OF STATUS OF TRANSMISSION, OCC-1122

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cima:

This responds to your letter asking about the identification and visibility requirements applicable to a gear position indicator for an automatic transmission. You asked whether the indicator must be visible to the driver (1) when he or she enters the car or (2) whenever anyone is behind the wheel. As discussed below, the indicator must be visible whenever anyone is in the driver's seating position.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, requires that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." (Emphasis added) NHTSA has previously interpreted this provision as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, become activated) only after the driver turns on the ignition.

Your letter raises the issue of whether it is permissible for an electronic display to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and, if so, whether it must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the car, even if the ignition is not turned on. It is our opinion that it is permissible for an electronic display to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and need not be activated when there is no person in the driver's seating position. Section S3.2's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions be "permanently displayed" is modified by the phrase "in

view of the driver." It is our opinion that no such display is required at times when no driver is in the car, i.e., no person in the driver's seating position. We also conclude, however, that such a display must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the driver's seating position even if the ignition is not turned on. If the display only remained activated for a specific period of time, such as five minutes, it would not be "permanently" displayed.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Andrew A Kroll

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew A. Kroll 1401 East Girard, 1270 Englewood, Colorado 80110

Dear Mr. Kroll:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically you asked whether that standard is applicable to foam-filled passenger car tires that do not have any air in the inner tire cavity. Standard No. 109 does not apply to foam-filled passenger car tires.

Section S2 of Standard No. 109 specifies that "this standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948." In section S3 of the standard, the term "pneumatic tire" is defined as "a mechanical device made of rubber, chemicals, fabric and steel or other materials, which, when mounted on an automotive wheel, provides the traction and contains the gas or fluid that sustains the load" (emphasis added). Thus the relevant question is whether the foam filling the tires in question is considered a "gas or fluid". In a February 14, 1975 letter to Mr. J.F. Hutchinson, NHTSA stated that foam-filled tires "should not be considered pneumatic tires." This conclusion means that foam-filled tires for use on passenger cars are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 109.

One result of this determination is that foam-filled tires can not be installed as original equipment on any new passenger car Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims (49 CFR S571.110) sets forth requirements for new passenger cars. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 110 reads as follows: "Passenger cars shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of S571.109." Since foam-filled tires are not subject to Standard No. 109, they do not meet its requirements. Thus, it would be a violation of Standard No. 110 for any new passenger car to be equipped with foam-filled tires as original equipment.

You should also recognize that, even though foam-filled tires are not subject to Standard No. 109, they are still "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Among other things, this means that, if there is a determination that the tires contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the foam-filled tires is required to notify purchasers and dealers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge to the purchasers, if the tire was purchased less than 3 calendar years before the determination of defect was made.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Andrew A. Kroll 1401 East Girard, #270 Englewood, Colorado 80110 (303) 761-9227

23 April 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Chief Counsel Jones,

I am requesting an interpretation of the "Code of Federal Regulation" (No. 49) Part 571, Standard 109. Presently, the standard states that a specified air pressure must be in an automotive or truck tire for on road usage. What then is the legal status of foam filled tires without any air in the inner tire cavity. These tires are in use on heavy industrial machinery, and would have security applications for automobiles.

I would very much appreciate an interpretation of this standard on how it pertains to foam filled or solid tires for on road usage.

Thank you very much for your time. I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Andrew A. Kroll

ID: 86-5.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Roger F. Hagie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roger F. Hagie Government Relations Manager Kawasaki Motors Corporation, D.S.A. P.O. Box 11447 Santa Ana, CA 92711

Dear Mr. Hagie:

This responds to your April 11, 1986, letter to this office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We regret the delay in our response.

You asked whether brake hoses that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 106 except the whip resistance test of S5.3.3 may be used in locations not subject to movement during vehicle operation. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

As you know, Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." Manufacturers of brake hoses must certify that their hoses comply with all applicable requirements of the standard. From your letter, it appears that while you agree that the equipment you manufacture are brake hoses, you believe that they should not be subject to the whip resistance test because your hoses would not be used between articulating parts.

We do not agree that the whip test does not apply to brake hoses used between non-articulating parts. No provision has been made in the standard or in the whip resistance test of S5.3.3 to exclude hoses manufactured for use between non-moving parts. In contrast, the standard has set separate requirements under certain tests for brake hoses used betheen articulating parts hhen it is appropriate to distinguish between articulat ng and non-articulating applications (see, for example, the tensile strength test of S7.3.10 for air brake hose assemblies).

Further, we believe that there is a safety need to test brake hoses intended for non-articulating applications for fatigue resistance, since they are also subject to vibration, bending and articulating stress while the motor vehicle is being operated or repaired.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 11, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS 106

Dear Ms. Jones:

By this letter, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the applicability of 49 CFR Part 571.106 (FMVSS 106 - Brake Hoses) to a proposed installation of brake hose to a Kawasaki motorcycle.

Background to Request

Standard 106 defines "brake hose" as "a flexibly conduit . . . manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure . . . used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." In introducing amendments to Standard 145, NHTSA states that "(c)hassis plumbing1/ which is flexible fails within the definition of brake hose." (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8; 38 F.R. 31302.) This pronouncement provoked a number of responses, leading NHTSA to clarify that ". . . a safety need exists to include flexible chassis plumbing in this standard because it is used in the same environment as hose located at articulating points and is subject to many of the same types of stress, including heat, cold, and pressure." (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 10; 39 F.R. 7425.)

However, apparantly realizing that not every installation of flexible hose as chassis plumbing would be, in fact, subject to the same range of stress as that applied to hose connecting the chassis and a wheel-mounted brake system, NHTSA stared that it "will continue to provide interpretations (concerning the applicability of the standard to specific installations) to interested persons upon request." (ibid.) This policy was subsequently restated by NHTSA in Docket 1-5; Notice 11; 39 F.R. 24012: "The NHTSA continues to believe that this concept can best be treated on a case-by-case request for interpretation . . ."

1/ Chassis plumbing, which is not defined to Kawasaki's knowledge, is assumed to refer to brake hoses or lines which are firmly attached to the chassis and are not required to "flex" to accomodate movement such as between chassis and wheel or between tractor and trailer.

Request

Kawasaki wishes to know whether NHTSA would agree that brake hose which complies with all requirements of FMVSS 106 except Section 5.3.3 (Whip resistance) may be used as chassis plumbing, i.e., installed in a location not subject to movement during vehicle operation.

Your earliest consideration of this request will be appreciated.

Sincerely, KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

Roger F. Hagie Government Relations Manager

RFH:jb

ID: 86-6.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Francois Louis -- Governmental Affairs Director, Renault USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/13/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Paul Utans (Std. 208); 8/11/88 letter from Paul Utans to Erika Z. Jones (occ 2405); 8/18/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to D. Black (Std. 210)

TEXT:

Mr. Francis Louis Governmental Affairs Director Renault USA 1111 19th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036

Thank you for your letter of October 17, 1986, to Dr. Richard Strombotne of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You have asked a number of questions concerning how the requirements of the standard apply to the automatic restraint system Renault intends to use in one of its vehicles. The answers to your questions are discussed below.

You explained that Renault plans to use, at both front outboard seating positions, an automatic restraint system consisting of a motorized, detachable, two-point automatic belt and a knee bolster. You stated that the automatic restraint system meets all the Injury criteria of the standard when tested in the 30 mile per hour frontal barrier test of S5.1 of the standard. You also explained that Renault has decided to install voluntarily a manual lap belt with your automatic restraint system. You further stated that the addition of the manual lap belt does not affect the performance of the automatic restraint system, since your testing shows that the automatic restraint system can meet the injury criteria in a 30 mile per hour frontal barrier crash test both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.

As I understand your first question, you are, in essence, asking the agency to confirm that under S4.5.3 of the standard an automatic belt system with a single diagonal torso belt can be used to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2). As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt system can be "used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option." Thus, you are correct that an automatic safety belt can be substituted for the Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt otherwise required by S4.1.2.1 (c)(2) of the standard. This means that a Renault vehicle equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.

Your second and final question concerned how our safety standards, in particular Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, would apply to a manual lap belt voluntarily installed by manufacturers with an automatic safety belt system. In a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford Motor Company, NHTSA stated that "active lap belts and their associated anchorages are not required to comply with Federal safety standards if installed voluntarily by a manufacturer in addition to a single, diagonal passive belt." In responding to Ford, NHTSA also noted that in past interpretations the agency has stated that "systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the passive belt in this case) to comply with Federal safety systems." In Renault's case, the addition of the manual lap belt does not appear to affect the automatic safety belt, since you stated that Renault can meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 17, 1986

Dr. Richard Strombotne Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Room 5320 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Reference: FMVSS 208 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Dr. Strombotne:

As of September 1, 1987, Renault intends to sell on the US market a vehicle equipped with a passive restraint system at both front out-board seating positions consisting of:

- a motorized detachable thoracic diagonal belt, with a 2-point anchorage on the body of the vehicle, and - a knee bolster.

As required by Standard 208, all injury criteria are satisfied when the vehicle is tested in accordance with S.5.1.

Since a webbing is an integral part of our passive protection device, S.4.5.3 is applicable. We interpret S.4.5.3 to say that "the torso webbing offers a similar level of protection in lateral/rollover crashes as does a single lap belt mounted in conjunction with the knee bolster".

In other words, this means that "in passive systems including a knee bolster, a webbing that is exclusively pelvic or the addition of a lap belt to the existing torso belt would not appreciably upgrade the quality of protection that is offered to the occupants in lateral/rollover crashes by a purely thoracic webbing".

We voluntarily chose to comply with S4.1.2.1.c.2 of Standard 208, that is. to furnish a lap belt, so that compliance with the lateral/ rollover test requirements would not be necessary. Consequently, the upper webbing is no less efficient than a lap belt. Therefore, we are not obligated to provide a lap belt at all, and if we do, it is purely on a non-compulsory basis (this obviously does not apply to air bags when no torso webbing is supplied). However, in order to cover the widest range of crash situations, we decided to offer a seat-mounted lap belt anyway. The requirements of S.5.1 are still met with or with- out that additional belt. As our lap belt is not compulsory, it is installed voluntarily, and thus does not have to comply with any other requirement.

Could you please confirm to us that our interpretation as stated here is correct in its entirety? If it is incorrect, how are we to interpret S.4.5.3 properly and what requirements then apply to our active lap belt? In particular, what loads and location requirements have to be considered in order to meet FMVSS 210?

Thank you in advance for your response to these questions.

Sincerely,

Francois Louis Governmental Affairs Director Washington, DC